Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary @ Pradeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed as there was no fresh ground to consider it, and the trial was directed to be expedited.

Summary

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary, sought bail in a case under Sections 8, 17(C) and 18(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, alleging prolonged judicial custody since July 2024. The High Court had earlier rejected regular bail, directing the lower court to expedite the trial because contraband exceeding commercial quantity had been recovered. A progress report showed only two of six witnesses examined, but the prosecution indicated the trial could be completed within six months if it cooperated. The petitioner argued he was being detained without cause, while the State opposed bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the bail issue and again denied bail, ordering the trial to be concluded within five months, with a provision to renew the bail application if the deadline is missed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act given the recovery of contraband beyond commercial quantity and the stage of trial.
  • Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the previously rejected bail petition.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • contraband
  • judicial custody
  • trial expeditious
  • Sections 8
  • Section 17(C)
  • Section 18(C)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21709 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2024 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary @ Pradeep Kumar S/o Mr. Jeha Ram R/o Village-
                 Khariya Khurd, PS- Rageshwari Gas Terminal Nagar, Dist.- Barmer,
                 Rajasthan
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   15-05-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amas P.S.

                   Case No. 207 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections

                   8, 17(C) and 18(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

                             3. Earlier, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 65862 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was

                   rejected by this Court considering the recovery of contraband

                   beyond commercial quantity with direction to the learned Court

                   below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

                             4. In compliance of the order dated 03.04.2026, a report

                   dated 24.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

                   been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

                   that out of six witnesses, two witnesses have been examined. It
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21709 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     is further reported that if the prosecution co-operates, the trial of

                     the case would be completed within six months.

                              5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.07.2024

                     without any rhymes or reason.

                              6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     grant of bail.

                              7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition

                     of the petitioner.

                               8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the

                     petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to

                     expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously

                     preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial

                     is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated

                     above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before

                     the court below.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.